Copyright Infringement Suit Against Model

Photographer Sues Emily Ratajkowski for Copyright Infringement

Model and Actress Emily Ratajkowski is one more name on a growing list of celebrities facing off with photographers in legal battles. Ratajkowski, like others, is accused of violating the rights of a photographer by posting a picture without permission. Photographers across the globe have filed similar cases against musicians, designers, and models.

Who are these famous defendants in copyright cases? Justin, Bieber, Bella Hadid, Arianna Grande, and Jennifer Lopez, to name a few.

Robert O’Neil Sues Ratajkowski Over Instagram Post

The Fashion Law reported on October 23 that photographer Robert O’Neil filed his copyright infringement lawsuit against Ratajkowski in New York Federal Court. The complaint against Ratajkowski and her corporate entity Emrata Holdings, LLC, contains claims that Ratajkowski posted a photograph he took to her Instagram story and had no right to do so. The picture shows Ratajkowski holding a floral bouquet in front of her face as she walks down a city street. She posted it for her 24 million followers along with the caption “mood forever.”

According to The Fashion Law, O’Neil’s court documents allege he is the “author of the photograph and has at all times been the sole owner of all right, title and interest in and to the photograph, including the copyright thereto.”

What are the Rights of a Copyright Holder?

The holder of a copyright has the exclusive rights to display his work publicly or to allow others to do the same. Photographers may issue licenses, collect fees, and set the terms under which their pictures can be used. In this case, O’Neil allegedly issued a license to and received payment from the UK Daily Mail. His complaint alleges that no such agreement existed between him and Ratajkowski. His complaint states that before posting the picture to Instagram, she “did not license the photo.” Nor did she have “permission or consent to publish the photo.”

Does it Matter that You Can’t See a Face in the Photo?

No, it does not. The photo itself is not what matters. As the author of the October 23, 2019, post states, “Regardless of who the subject of the photo is and whether or not they consented to having their photo taken, once an at least minimally original/creative photo is taken.”

The copyright holder, typically the photographer, has the exclusive copyright to that photo for his or her entire life plus 70 years after death. Unless the photographer assigns or otherwise grants rights to its use, he or she retains exclusive control.

Contact Our Copyright Lawyers Today

If you are a photographer and a celebrity has posted a picture you took, you might be entitled to collect statutory damages for copyright infringement. Call the copyright attorneys at Sanders Law Group at (800) 979-3707 to discuss your infringement claim. Our copyright lawyers understand how to help photographers enforce their legal rights and collect compensation when someone violates them.

Sources:

New York Photographer Sues over Benedict Cumberbatch Photo

North Carolina Sees an Increase in Copyright Lawsuits with the Latest Filing by NY Photographer

A New York photographer is suing a Wake Forest-based company for copyright infringement. Photographer Steve Sands is represented by Sanders Law Group, which filed the federal lawsuit on August 8, 2019, in the Eastern District of North Carolina. According to the Triangle Business Journal (the Journal), the case is against Epicstream, a company that describes itself as “an independent news and entertainment website celebrating the fantasy and science fiction genres.”

In the lawsuit, the Triangle Business Journal reports, Sands claims that Epicstream used a photograph he took of Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of the film “Dr. Strange,” and did so with no license or permission. Sands states that he registered his copyright to the photo in question with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Epicstream allegedly featured the copyrighted photograph with an article it posted about Cumberbatch. The complaint itself states, “Epicstream did not license the Photograph from the Plaintiff… nor did Epicstream have Plaintiff’s permission or consent to publish the Photograph on the Website.”

One of Several North Carolina Cases

According to the Journal, the lawsuit filed by Sands and his attorney is just one of several recent copyright matters that have been in the local North Carolina news. Artists across the state are seeking to enforce ownership rights to their work. A few cases are pending in North Carolina that involve photographers claiming businesses are using copyrighted images with no compensation, permission, or licensing arrangements.

How Do Businesses Violate Copyright Law in North Carolina and Across the Globe?

Copyright violations occur daily in the United States and around the world. Artists, authors, photographers, and graphic designers are subject to purposeful and accidental acts that compromise their ownership rights in the work they create.

Consider some of the following ways businesses violate the copyrights of photographers and other creative individuals:

  • An advertising company uses a copyrighted image on a billboard to promote the products of a large corporation. The company does not ask you for permission or compensate you in any way.
  • A music festival creates flyers and posters to promote its event using an image you took, with no permission, agreement, or payment.
  • A marketing company prints a photo taken by you on dozens of items and sells them for a nice profit. The company knows you own the rights to the picture but does not pay for a license to use it or provide you with any compensation.
  • A celebrity uses a picture you took of her and uses it on Instagram to promote her global brand
  • A movie company showcases a photograph you took in many scenes in its film without permission or payment from you.
  • A business uses your pictures beyond the scope of a license agreement
  • A company does not pay you according to the terms of a license agreement

Contact Us

At the Sanders Law Group, we see every way in which photographers suffer when others violate their rights. If you are a photographer, you deserve compensation for your hard work. You also deserve compensation when someone infringes upon your copyright willfully or unintentionally.

Call the Sanders Law Group if you need help enforcing your copyright. We can help ensure that you and your work receive the maximum protection the law allows and that you collect damages to which you are entitled. Call our global copyright lawyer today for a free case evaluation at (800) 979-3707.

Sources:

Supreme Court Copyright Infringement Case

Supreme Court Takes on Copyright Infringement

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear the case of Frederick (Rick) Allen, well known filmmaker and photographer. According to Eriq Gardner in his article for the Hollywood Reporter, SCOTUS will determine if the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects states from copyright infringement lawsuits and prevents congress from drafting laws to the contrary. The case, titled Allen v. Cooper, is on the court’s calendar for November 5, 2019.

Allen Filmed and Photographed Salvaging of Pirate Ship: Queen Ann’s Revenge

Allen’s company, Nautilus Productions, is pursuing the state of North Carolina (NC) and its Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) for posting online videos Allen took of Queen Anne’s Revenge (QAR). QAR is Blackbeard’s pirate ship, which ran aground on the coast of North Carolina in 1718. A private research firm discovered the wreck in 1996. In 1998, Allen shot video and took photographs of the process of salvaging the wreckage. He registered his work with the United States Copyright office.

North Carolina Allegedly Used Photographers Copyrighted Work Without Permission

In 2013 when the DNCR first posted some of Allen’s video of the shipwreck on its website, the parties came to a mutual settlement. NC paid damages to Allen for the copyright infringement, and took the video off the site. Shortly thereafter, the DNCR posted several “short videos and one photograph” from the recovery expedition. Allen subsequently filed a lawsuit against NC and DNCR for copyright infringement.

North Carolina Passed Blackbeard’s Law

After Allen filed his lawsuit, NC passed Statute 121-25(b) which Allen calls “Blackbeard’s Law.” This law “treats all photographs, video recordings and other documentary materials of a derelict vessel or shipwreck or its contents as “public record.” It would follow, therefore, that NC’s use of Allen’s photographs and videos of QAR would not require permission from or compensation to the copyright holder. Allen’s videos and pictures of the expedition would be public record, usable by anyone.

The Photographer and State Have Opposing Views on Sovereign Immunity

Allen argued that the statute violated the due process clause of the constitution. The state held the position that the 11th amendment gave NC immunity from being the defendant in any federal lawsuit, despite the existence of the federal Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). The CRCA grants citizens the right to file copyright suits against the government. The lower court agreed with Allen. On appeal, however, the court ruled in favor of NC.

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Photographer in Copyright Infringement Case

Allen petitioned SCOTUS for certiorari convincing them to address the confusion surrounding state sovereignty under the 11th Amendment and congress’s duty to protect the intellectual property rights of its citizens. Allen’s camp stated “The Constitution of the United States of America expressly empowers Congress to grant copyright holders ‘the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.’ We look forward to making our case to the Supreme Court as to why it was within Congress’s constitutional authority to hold states liable for their acts of copyright infringement.”

SCOTUS Will Determine Validity of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act

The US congress passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). The US Congress passed this law in the early 1990s. The CRCA effectively eliminated state sovereign immunity in cases involving intellectual property. The CRCA made it possible for private citizens to sue a state for violations of copyrights and other IP law. However, several cases over the years that arose under the CRCA, including Allen’s left its constitutionality up in the air.

Copyright Supporters Rally Behind Allen

More than a dozen organizations or individuals have filed briefs in support of Allen’s case urging SCOTUS to reinvigorate the rights bestowed by the CRCA. In one amicus brief filed by the music lobbying group The Recording Industry Association of America stated that under the ruling of the fourth circuit, “”States are once again free to engage in copyright infringement — no matter how widespread or blatant — without fear of having to pay any money as a result,” stated the amicus brief. “Unsurprisingly, then, despite Congress’s efforts, copyright infringement by States is once again a very serious problem.”

Contact Us to Discuss Your Copyright Claim

Call the Sanders Law Group if you are a photographer who needs help enforcing your copyright or other intellectual property rights. You can reach our lawyer who handles copyright matters around the globe at (800) 979-3707. Call today for a free consultation.

Sources:

Copyright Feud Over Infringement

Photographer Accuses Digital Artist of Stealing

There’s no formal lawsuit yet, but a very angry photographer is contemplating filing one. Photographer Jason Weingart is calling digital artist Brent Shavnore a “thief” and a “liar,” alleging he is stealing his photographs and using them in his own work.

Peta Pixel recently reported on this feud that has yet to turn into a legal battle. Shavnore insists that the accusations are the result of a misunderstanding and that Weingart is acting “childish.”

Who are the Parties Feuding?

Weingart is an extreme weather photographer. According to his website, he “travels over 50,000 miles each year in search of new and compelling images.”

Shavnore describes himself on his website as a “Marine Corp veteran, Audio Engineer/Photographer/Videographer/Social Media Marketing Consultant.” His work is popular on Instagram. Shavnore uses images of extreme weather and uses photoshop to create fantastical scenes. Weingart claims that Shavnore’s work contains his copyrighted images and that he is using them with no license or permission.

Weingart Asked Shavnore to Take Down the Images

When Weingart asked Shavnore to remove the images, Shavnore responded, “I buy all of my images from Shutterstock and Adobe Stock and have licenses for everything I blend together – if you did not authorize your work on Shutterstock or Adobe Stock, please let me know which ones are yours so I can notify them and remove them from my page.”

Shavnore Claims Pictures Were Licensed, Then Reneges

Weingart then allegedly scoured Adobe Stock and Shutterstock and confirmed that his work was not on either website. Since then Shavnore has explained that he got photos in question from a free site, Pixabay, which existed before Adobe Stock and Shutterstock. He claims that “The problem with the free sites is people upload work that is not theirs and pass it off as being royalty-free and you run into problems like this.” Shavnore claims this was a purely unintentional, honest mistake, and that he has removed the pictures that incorporate Weingart’s images.

Is Legal Action Coming?

Weingart told Petapixel that he is considering taking legal action against Shavnore. The issues that might arise in such a case might include:

  • Who is responsible if Shavnore downloaded the images from a free stock website?
  • Is it the website Pixabay?
  • Does the user have to research if there is a copyright for each photo?
  • If Shavnore’s violation was unintentional, will he still owe damages to Weingart?
  • Does the use of these images fall into the fair use exception?

As this feud demonstrates, the internet, photoshop, and social media have opened up an array of new copyright issues for the courts, photographers, and artists to consider.

Contact the Sanders Law Group If You Are a Photographer Whose Copyright Rights Have Been Violated

We help photographers protect their rights and collect compensation allowed by US Copyright laws. If you are a photographer in your legal rights of been violated, call our copyright attorneys today at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

Supermodel Copyright Infringement

A Photographer Is Suing Supermodel Gigi Hadid for Copyright Infringement.

Again.

This time, the photograph in question is her ex-boyfriend Zayn Malik.

E!News said that Hadid has not commented about this most recent complaint against her. But, she is no stranger to challenging the notion that the paparazzi have complete control over photographs of celebrities. This complaint marks the third time she is being sued for using a photograph on her social media that is alleged to violate the copyright of the photographer. The other two lawsuits involved posting pictures of herself on twitter or Instagram.

The Most Recent Infringement Lawsuit

In a September 13 report, E!News said that it obtained court documents showing that Robert O’Neil, professional photographer, filed a lawsuit against Hadid in the Southern District of New York. In the lawsuit, O’Neil claims that Hadid used his copyrighted photograph of Malik in her Instagram story.

The complaint states, “This action arises out of Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction and public display of a copyrighted photograph of English singer and songwriter Zayn Malik, owned and registered by O’Neil, a New York-based professional photographer.”

Suit Alleges Hadid Violated Photographer’s Copyright

When copyright attaches to a photograph, the photographer has control over how, where, and when it gets used or displayed. The photographer may grant a license for its use, with or without compensation. The purpose of copyright is to see that photographers get paid for their work and that others can’t profit from using it without permission or some agreement between the parties.

As O’Neil’s documents state, “Gigi Hadid is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.”

Photographer Asks Court for Maximum Statutory Damages

The fashionlaw.com reported that in this copyright infringement case, O’Neil asks the court award statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement. The damages requested are for violating his “exclusive right to display the image, and distribute copies of it to the public by sale or another form of transfer, such as licensing, among other things.”

If Someone Violates Your Copyright, Contact Our Attorneys Today

If you are a photographer and a celebrity posts without permission, pictures you took, call the Sanders Law Group today for a free case evaluation. Our experienced copyright lawyers represent photographers across the globe and can help you protect your legal rights. Call today at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

Collecting Damages Copyright Infringement

Photographers Can Collect Damages for Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement is illegal. If you are a photographer, you work hard to earn a living. You get to decide who uses your pictures and how. You also get to choose how much money, if any, you will charge for them.

Copyright infringement occurs with alarming frequency. You must take steps to collect compensation when someone violates your rights.

What is Copyright Infringement?

When you take a photograph, copyright automatically exists and grants you Several exclusive rights. Copyright infringement occurs when someone violates one of your exclusive rights under US Copyright Law. The rights include:

  • To make copies of the picture
  • To create derivative work based on the picture
  • To distribute copies of the picture
  • To publicly display the picture

When someone violates one of these rights, the actions might constitute copyright infringement.

To have a copyright infringement claim:

  • You must have a valid copyright
  • The alleged infringer must have access to the picture
  • The action of the suspected offender must not fall into an exception

In a Successful Infringement Case, You Can Collect Monetary Damages

When you prove infringement, you can collect damages. Depending on the circumstances, the following damages may be available:

Actual Damages
Actual damages are the losses that you, the copyright owner, directly suffered because of the infringement. Actual damages can be difficult to calculate because they are often speculative. These damages can include money for reduced sales of the copyrighted work or the loss of profits you would have earned from licensing.

Profits
The court will award you the profits earned by the infringer to the extent that they are higher than the value of your actual damages. The profits go to the copyright holder, so the violator does not benefit from his or her wrongdoing.

Statutory Damages
To collect statutory damages, you must show the court that you registered your pictures with the US Copyright Office. The registration must be before the infringement or within three months of publishing the picture.

What is the Value of Your Infringement Claim?

Every copyright infringement case is unique, and the range of monetary damage varies. When statutory damages are involved, the judge will determine the amount you will receive after analyzing various factors such as:

  • The severity of the infringement
  • The infringers ability to pay
  • The intent of the infringer

If the judge determines the infringement occurred innocently or was a mistake of some kind, you may only collect a few hundred dollars per incident of infringement. If you can prove the infringement on your copyright was intentional or malicious, the court may award you up to $150,000 per incident of infringement.

Examples of Copyright Infringement

Consider the following scenario: You have five photographs that are the subject of your copyright claim. You prove to the court that you hold a valid copyright, you registered it, and the defendant copied each photograph and sold them.

If the court decides the defendant, a small-time digital media specialist, had no way of knowing the photograph was copyrighted, the court may find she might have to pay less than the maximum based on the infringement.

If the court determines, the infringer worked for a large corporation that intended to infringe, the party knew the material was copyrighted, and the corporation sold thousands of copies; the defendant may have to pay up to $150,000 for each. In that case, the court could award up to $750,000.

Other Legal Remedies for Copyright Infringement

In addition to monetary damages, you might also ask the court for injunctive relief. An injunction stops the infringement from continuing. The court may impound or seize illegal reproductions or derivative work. The court can also give the infringer jail time.

Contact the Copyright Lawyers at Sanders Law Group

Have questions about collecting monetary damages for copyright infringement? You can reach our experienced copyright lawyers at 516-233-1660.

Sources:

Registering Your Copyright

Registering Your Copyright for Your Photographs: Common Questions

Where Do I Register?

To register for your federal copyright, you must submit information to the US Copyright Office. You can register your photographs by accessing online registration which is located on Office’s website. You may also register by printing and following the instructions on the form, which is also located on the website. The website for the US Copyright office is www.copyright.gov.

Why Do I Have to Register My Photographs?

Your copyright does exist from the moment you take a picture. It is automatic. Why register it with the US Copyright Office? Registering helps if you want to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court. If you register prior to the alleged infringement or within three months after your work is published, you might be able to collect statutory damages. Statutory damages can be significant, up to $150,000 for each photograph. Registering your copyright also means you might collect attorney’s fees. Without a valid registration, you will only be entitled to collect actual damages and profits, which can be very difficult to prove.

What Does “Published” Mean?

According to US Copyright Law, an image is published if copies of the work are distributed to the public by sale, rent, lease, or loan, or another transfer of ownership. Distributing copies to a group of people with the intent to further distribute or display your photograph does mean it is published.

Do I Have to Register Every One of the Photographs I Take Individually?

No, you can register several of your images at once. You can make one registration for a group of published images when:

  • The same photographer took all of the images
  • The images were all first published in the same calendar year

If your photographs are unpublished, you may register them in groups or collections. According to the Professional Photographers of America,

“A group of unpublished images can be registered as a collection if the elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form, the combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole, the copyright claimant for each element in the collection is the same, and all elements of the collection were created by the same author or at least one author has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.”

When Should I Register My Photographs?

It is wise to register your photographs before they are published or publicly displayed.

How Much Does It Cost to Register My Photographs?

As of this posting, it costs between $35 and $55 per application to register your photographs with the US Copyright Office.

What Is the “Poor Man’s Copyright?”

Poor man’s copyright is a term that refers to the practice of mailing yourself a copy of your work. This is not a recommended substitute for a valid registration.

Contact the Sanders Law Group for Assistance with Copyright Matters

Our experienced copyright lawyers can help you secure and enforce your legal rights. We represent photographers around the globe and work hard to ensure that you receive proper compensation for your hard work. Call us at 516-233-1660 for a free case evaluation.

Sources:

Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Photographer, Friend Suing Prince’s Estate for Copyright Infringement

Fstoppers.com reported that Madison Dube is suing the estate of the late singer Prince and “associated companies” for copyright infringement. According to the article’s author Jack Alexander, Dube was a friend and protégé of Prince, who worked for the musician between 2013 and his death in 2016. Dube worked “to provide freelance work, including photography, graphic design, film/videography, voice, and other creative work.”

In her lawsuit, Dube claims the estate of the late singer is using some of that work for commercial value without permission.

US Copyright Law Gives Photographers Exclusive Rights

Under US copyright law, the person who takes a photograph is the exclusive owner of the rights to that photograph. This ownership right exists automatically the moment a photographer snaps a picture. Copyright protection extends to other forms of creative work as well.

Copyright gives a photographer the exclusive right to decide who, if anyone, may reproduce or “use” their work, and under what terms. License agreements provide specific terms of use and compensation. An artist can give away the rights for free or ask for payment. Again, copyright puts the control in the hand of the creator of the work.

Dube’s lawsuit alleges that Prince’s estate is using her materials without the proper licenses and without consulting her. She claims the estate is using the images in ways that are entirely beyond the intention of their collaborations, such as advertising and merchandising. The estate seems to be doing this with full knowledge that the work belongs to Dube, even giving her credit.

Dube Claims She Never Assigned Any Rights to Her Photographs of Prince

Setting this lawsuit apart from some other copyright infringement cases is that Dube’s claim states explicitly that she never signed away any of her rights to the work she did for Prince. The reason? Prince was a firm believer that artists should retain the right to their artistry.

What does Dube want? She wants the estate of Prince to stop using her images. She also wants damages for past use. The complaint states: “Ms. Dube now brings this action to assert her rights guaranteed under the Copyright Act, and to preserve the integrity of her work, currently being commercialized by defendants and used for mass-marketing, mass-produced sales and advertising, without her consent and contrary to the intent behind the creation of those works.”

The copyright case, 0:19-cv-02968-JRT-HB, was filed on November 22, 2019, in the US District Court of Minnesota and remains active.

Call Sanders Law Group To Protect Your Copyright

Sanders Law Group is dedicated to fighting for the rights of photographers around the globe. Call us today (800) 979-3707 for a free consultation of your copyright claim.

Sources:

Photo of John and Yoko Sparks Copyright Lawsuit

Photographer Sues Universal Music for Using his Photo of John Lennon

Allan Tannenbaum is an award-winning photographer. He is most well-known for taking photographs of the New York City art and music scene during the 1970s and into the early 1980s. Of his vast portfolio of photos, one, in particular, is now the subject of a copyright lawsuit. According to various websites such as digitalmusicnews.com and torrentfreak.com, Tannenbaum filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Universal Music Group, Inc. (UMG) in New York District Court on May 23, 2019. Tannenbaum is represented in this case by The Sanders Law Group.

Iconic Photo of John Lennon is Subject of Copyright Lawsuit

The iconic photograph at the heart of the dispute is of John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono, which Tannenbaum took in 1980. It is an image captioned on his website with these words: “John Lennon cracks a joke while he and Yoko are nude in bed filming a video for ‘Just Like Starting Over’ in a SoHo studio, November 26, 1980.” Tannenbaum states in his complaint that he owns all of the rights to this photograph and that UMG violated his copyright by using the image without his permission.

UMG, the complaint alleges, publicly displayed the iconic, copyrighted photograph on one of its websites called udiscovermusic.com. The website published an article titled “John Lennon-Milk and Honey” alongside which were images of John and Yoko, including Tannenbaum’s picture described above. Udiscovermusic.com published the photograph notating Tannenbaum’s copyright. The article was published in 2015, but Tannenbaum did not discover copyright infringement until recently.

The Complaint Contains Allegations of Intentional Copyright Infringement

The complaint against UMG filed under section 501 of the US Copyright Act states that Tannenbaum is the author of the photograph. Furthermore, the complaint says that at all times, he has been the sole owner of all of the rights to the image, including copyright.

The complaint also alleges that,

Universal Music infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in the Photograph by reproducing and publicly displaying the Photograph on the Website,” the complaint notes.
Universal Music is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.
It further alleges that Universal’s actions were willful, intentional, and purposeful, in “disregard of and indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

If Tannenbaum’s copyright infringement lawsuit is successful, he may be entitled to recover actual damages and any profits UMG realized from its unlawful use of the copyrighted photograph of John and Yoko. Alternatively, because his copyright is registered with the US copyright office, he may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $150,000.

Federal Copyright Law Protects Photographers

Copyright law is in place to protect photographers from unauthorized use of their work. Copyright bestows upon photographers the sole right to determine when, where and how their work is displayed, and by whom. It is up to each individual photographer to decide on whether to grant a license to use their image, demand payment for a picture, or turn it over for public use. When a business or a person reproduces a photograph you took, you may have the right to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Contact our Copyright Lawyers for Help

Contac Sanders Law Group if you are a photographer with concerns about copyright infringement. If your rights have been violated, call us today.

Sources:

Famous Photographer Sues for Copyright Infringement

Photographer Sues Clorox for Using Photos in Ways that are “Beyond the Scope” of Their Agreement

Jill Greenberg is a photographer known for animal portraits. Her book “Monkey Portraits: Plus a Few Apes” is a New York Times bestseller. In an article posted on AdAge.com, Jack Neff writes that one of her famed photos is now the subject of a lawsuit. Greenberg, on April 16, 2019, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Dentsu/McGarryBowen and Clorox Co. The lawsuit alleges that these businesses infringed on her copyright by using photographs in ways that were beyond the scope of their agreement.

According to Neff, McGarryBowen contracted with Greenberg to create a series of portraits showing cats walking and playing on top of some clear glass. The images were to be part of an advertising campaign for Fresh Step kitty litter. The purchase order for the pictures, Neff states in his post, was filed with Greenberg’s court documents. The agreement permits a wide range of uses of the photographs in print format, for a period of two years. The purchase order “excludes use of the photos in video, though it allows a wide range of uses in print, out of home, product packaging, and retail display.” According to the purchase agreement, Greenberg received for the images $115,450, plus over $80,000 in expenses.

Photographer’s Complaint Claims That Showing Her Work as Art Violated her Copyright

Greenberg alleges that Dentsu/McGarryBowen and Clorox used the photographs in ways that went beyond the scope of the agreement, breaching their contract and infringing on her copyright. She told AdAge that the parties never discussed using the photographs at pop-up art galleries in New York and California, which is where they ended up. Fresh-Step used the images from the ads as part of a show to promote cat adoption. Greenberg told Neff “In my 27 or 28 years of shooting advertising images, it never crossed my mind that my kitty litter ads would be put up on the wall of a Chelsea gallery and referred to as fine art photography.”

Lawsuit Lists Several Alleged Copyright Violations Devalued Her Work

Greenberg’s complaint alleges that there were several infringements on her copyright when Clorox or Dentsu/McGarryBowen “controlled and arranged interviews and content” that used Greenberg’s copyrighted work for local TV news broadcasts, the “Ellen” show” and more. Specific allegations of copyright infringement in Greenberg’s complaint include:

  • Paying influencers to post videos with her copyrighted pictures from the pop-ups
  • Showing the copyrighted photographs on an episode of the “Ellen DeGeneres Show.”
  • Arranging for video and pictures to air on the news in New York and California
  • Distributing the copyrighted photos as downloadable art or mobile wallpaper to reward members of Fresh Step’s Paw Points loyalty program.
  • Hosting live-streaming videos of the cats on glass pop up galleries

Greenberg claims that violating her rights significantly devalued the worth of her photographs and “confused the market” with regards to her brand. She asks that the court grant injunctive relief, along with statutory damages, licensing fees, actual damages, profits, and costs.

Photographers Use Copyright Laws to Protect and Control the Use of their Pictures

The purpose of copyright is to ensure photographers retain control over the reproduction, display, and other uses of their work. A for-hire contract that allows the “employer” to use the images does not automatically mean the photographer surrenders ownership rights. Copyright stays with the owner unless an agreement explicitly says otherwise. If the images get used in ways that are beyond the scope of the agreed-upon terms, copyright infringement may result.

Contact Our Copyright Infringement Lawyers for Help

If you are a photographer and your images are being used in violation of a license, for-hire, or other types of contract contact the Sanders Law Group for help. You can reach our copyright lawyers at 516-233-1660.

Sources: